If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Fake news is, for those who need to have this explained to them, making up a story wholesale. It's reporting a fiction. This obviously isn't what CNN did, since there actually was a Muslim solidarity protest for the victims of Manchester. They weren't even the only ones to report it. But getting all these people together to stage a snazzy photoshoot, making things look larger and more snazzy than how it was in reality, is sensationalism by the very definition of the word.

It's not as bad as what they're being accused of, but it's still not good.

That's what you get when the news is treated as entertainment. There's a good if somewhat depressing series called Newswipe that explores the topic in more depth, if you want to see more about how the sausage is made.

Different strokes, I suppose. I pay no attention to his hand movements, and I have no trouble understanding what he's saying whatsoever. The pace of his delivery might take getting used to if it's something you've not seen much of.

Philip DeFranco's been a Youtube staple for like a decade now, and I think the quality of the content he's put out has only improved with time. He does a good job, IMO, of cutting through the tangle of conflicting partisan spin that surrounds so much of the (mainstream and amateur) media coverage of the events unfolding in our world, and presenting the events, and the responses they create, in a format that is easy to digest, and far closer to genuinely fitting the phrase "fair and balanced" than any media outlet that's ever even thought about employing it.

He is steeped in quite a few of the "Youtube vlogger" tropes -- fast pacing with jump cuts to remove pauses, a whiff of clickbait in his video titles/thumbnails, and constant plugs for other Youtube channel content -- and that can make him unappealing to some, but I consider the meat of his content good enough to ignore the extraneous stuff.

I wasn't being entirely serious. A poor parody. I do have a problem with hands that are in my face a bit but that's peculiar to me and it has been worse over the last year. At least his have a natural look to them. I think fast delivery is hard because I'm slower to process information than I used to be and, I'm not used to it. Pauses give me time to catch up. No complaints about the content, some excellent points.

Having said that, he definitely talks more slowly in a second viewing.

Roy was knifed eight times by the attackers at the Black & Blue restaurant and bar. He fearlessly shouted back and fought them alone, saving countless lives and allowing others to escape in the process.

"I stood in front of them, trying to fight them off. Everyone else ran to the back. I was on my own against all three of them, that's why I got hurt so much.

"It was just me, trying to grab them with my bare hands and hold on. I was swinging. I got stabbed and sliced eight times. They got me in my head, chest and both hands. There was blood everywhere."

Because doing what you propose in America has stopped SO MANY terrorist Attacks...I'm sure all the official testimonies and whistleblowers claiming that the mass surveillance program stopped zero attacks were all liars.

Well yeah, the investigation is still ongoing as far as collusion is concerned. Unless you've got an insider in on the investigation, your assumptions on the issue are as likely as anyone else's.

As for interference, it's pretty much accepted standard among everyone except the chucklefuck brigade by this point. Nikki Hayley, Trump's UN ambassador, and bonafide Republican, recently stated as much.

And multiple Obama officials testifying under oath that there was no election interference. How quickly thing are forgotten.

Even then can ANYONE define that this "interference" is? And how it's materially different than Saudi Arabia funding Clinton's campaign and Israel's blackmail of US legislators?

Do like the Israelis do. If someone is out in public trying to do something terroristy, everyone in the area will bum rush him, and beat his ass into the ground.

...though they've all got military training, which does help a bit.

That hasn't worked with Westerners and it only will happen in working class areas. R/K selection theory explains why fairly well. One hardwired evolutionary response is more like wolves (predators) and results in aggressive pack action to neutralize the threat. The other is more like prey (rabbits) and relies on trying to get out of the way so that somebody else gets killed first.

Got a link for the former, because it now seems that interference is now accepted as a given across party lines. The question now is collusion.

And the interference would be hacking one party to steer the voting public towards a candidate that's more friendly to the interlopers interests. Also, got a link for those last two?

I don't need to. They were rather open about, and the Saudis in particular claim to have funded 20% of Hillary's campaign.

Regarding the hacking, I have already linked to the details of that report that supposedly "proved" it was the Russians.

Once you read the actual document rather than just lapping up what pundits tell you it turn out that there isn't any actual indication it was them behind the leak and said conclusion is based entirely on circumstancial evidence. The "fingerprents" left behind are that the attack was conducted with outdated Ukranian malware that is used by.......amateur hackers all over the world. IP footprints were inconclusive as the point of origination appeared to be Germany.

Same point. Everyone is accepting this as "fact" nevermind that ZERO tangible evidence has been presented so far. The most recent leak shows that they were trying to run fishing attack against a voting machine company who is....so small that they don't even show up on industry reports much of the time.

Also got another tweet string here. Not an official account of course, but would be easy to verify. This guy is a British Muslim complaining that their media is actively pushing and celebritizing a radical preacher (using deceptive reporting tactics) who even most British muslims think is nuts.

Read the whole thing including all the videos. THAT is why I find the progressive position is insane. A lot of muslims hate these guys because they don't want them inciting violence either way, and they know that if there is violence they'll be caught up in the middle....nevermind that it makes all muslims look crazy.

It's absolutely INSANE to me that Western liberal political coalitions are willing to go to bat for and defend extremist Muslim views that even most moderate Muslims find repugnant. Some of these parties really do hate themselves that much they guess. Put that in perspective: UK progressives and the BBC (not to mention liberal American news outlets) give radicalism more support than Muslims themselves do. I just wish that if they really must enact suicidal tendencies that they wouldn't try to bring the rest of us down with them.

You know what the scariest thing about Theresa May's little Twitter quip is? The surprising amount of people on both sides of the political divide who agree with it.

This is how Republics die right here, people.

Isn't that kind of like how you defend and supported Obama's legal claim that he's entitled to kill or detain indefinitely any US citizen, at any time, anywhere in the world, merely because he invokes the word "terrorism"? Although to be fair "defend" isn't exactly the right word. You mostly tried to rationalize it and tell us that they didn't actually mean what they said.

Yeah, you damn well do need to post links, Tony. Given your history of misrepresenting data, and bending evidence to support your own conclusions, your claims and accusations, by themselves, are worth about as much to me as used toilet paper by this point.

Do you think it's worth giving up Western values like religious freedom and human rights to achieve that?

I hear that often. It need dispelling because it's a false dilemma. We can easily deal with the enemy without giving up the values we like.

Religious freedom, like any freedom, ends where it impinges on the freedom of another. (For example, a worshipper of Týr is prevented from sacrificing humans because we codified murder to be illegal which in turn arises from inter alia the belief that preserving human life has greater moral value than pleasing the gods.)

There is no good reason to tolerate the religiously intolerant. In the eyes of them, people like me who do not hold religious beliefs are literally second class.

So how do you propose to do things like banning muslims from entering the country without giving up the idea of religious freedom?

I don't have a problem with cracking down on religious extremism, what I have a problem with is cracking down on ordinary muslims, which can only lead to more problems. Nobody here is saying that we should tolerate extremism.

And painting whole groups of people as an enemy based on the actions of a few is a well-trodden path in history that we know has disastrous consequences.

And this is not just empty rhetoric, there's lots of real world examples of it happening. The travel ban that was struck down by US courts, Theresa May saying that human rights laws will have to be changed if they get in the way in the fight against terror, etc... just to name a couple of more recent ones.

Well, my point is more that you can't implement sweeping changes like these without being willing to compromise on your principles. You can't have mass surveillance without infringing on the right to privacy, for example. It's not a false dilemma -- you can't eat your cake and have it too.

I don't see how you can compare strict immigration control with violating human rights. No one has a "right" to enter the UK, France or really any other nation.

You demand to enter my house. I say no. Have I violated your human rights?

Also I think Europe will soon reach a point where they will be presented with a choice: Hold to their principles of religious freedom, diversity, multiculturalism and open borders...or stay alive. I assume they will choose to stay alive.

I would at least have the ability to make the choice. Maybe I don't believe that those people are really going to kill you, and you seem too dangerous to let inside. Maybe it's a private dispute between you and those people, and my family's safety is more important than getting involved in YOUR dispute.

Many of the migrants are just coming to get work (or get on the dole), and not because they are in genuine danger. The average European was not given the choice. And even if some of them do need help...that doesn't mean Europeans have to keep helping, now that they are being slaughtered by bad ones who came in mixed with the ones who did need help.